Motif Bio Share Discussion Threads

[campbell48] 16/6/2021 16:21

Fellow ShareholdersPlease be advised that there is an active telegram group up and running, with the intention of forming a steering group to proactively engage with Motif IR.Please kindly join at https//t.me/joinchat/QgkE2kaDcLdjZjk0All holders interested in salvaging some value are welcome, particularly those with relevant understanding and expertise in dealing with similar experiences.Motif Telegram Group

[petersmith6] 16/6/2021 16:08

Marvlouse.. voting no has lost the little man everything..

[furryguy] 16/6/2021 13:16

Try reading the bulletin board.

[philoosh] 16/6/2021 12:52

To anyone still out there. Why was the motion not voted in? Obviously other than the fact not enough votes for....
What was wrong with the package set out?

[oilguy1] 15/6/2021 16:45

We are forming a private group to discuss what’s next for shareholders.
Please email..if you are shareholders.
[e-mail]

[chuffer2] 15/6/2021 08:55

100% correct furry.

[furryguy] 15/6/2021 08:42

You are incorrect one1. Consolidation plus reorganization of share capital meant existing went from holding 100% of share capital to 3.6% or so. That is the truth s
and heart of the dissent.

[blast from the past] 15/6/2021 08:00

Well said. MTFB shareholders now have exactly 100% of nothing. There will be no new offer because the only asset - the AIM Listing - has now gone.It will be interesting to see what happens to BVX 😀

[onei] 15/6/2021 07:36

Watching this with interest and some disappointment.

I don't know any of the Board of Directors or posters on here but seems to me that a breakdown in trust between the two has led to an end result of "Cutting nose to spite face"

Correct me if I am wrong but:
Company ran out of cash and only options left were to sell, merge or be taken over as a shell. ie existing shareholders not prepared to put up enough money to continue in business.

Proposed reverse takeover gives shareholders a value of less than 0.1p for each existing share (ie before any consolidation) but without a transaction they most likely will get no value.

A significant minority of shareholders (more than 25% but less than 50%) have effectively voted to receive no value. The reason being a desire to deprive the Board of Directors of a benefit ( and no, I don't know what this benefit might be.)

Now I can see that it is galling for Mr Gold to carry on as a Director after being part of such value destruction, and I have no idea how responsible he is. But wouldn't it have been better just to vote against him at the next AGM? Or maybe tell the NOMAD that you are going to vote down the whole proposal unless he goes?

What particularly puzzled me was that the dissenters voted down the resolution to consolidate the shares. This is a resolution that does nothing to alter the value of anybody's shareholding. (You get 1 share for every 220 but they are worth 220 times as much.)

The end result is that the substantial minority has actually deprived the majority from receiving any value. Is that morally right?

[awise355] 15/6/2021 06:33

That is truly a bad deal!

[awise355] 15/6/2021 06:04

Aim cancellation. Do we get anything for our shares?

[tnt99] 14/6/2021 20:21

I think 100/1 would be ok

[tnt99] 14/6/2021 18:55

Is it all over or will their be a better offer?

[chuffer2] 14/6/2021 16:21

Lol, like it!

[furryguy] 14/6/2021 16:02

Small Crow...or as I call you 'little tit' you are one sad pompous tw4t. Is Tutte locked up in his gimp-chest? Probably won't be let out for his old bones to gnaw on tonight.

[small crow] 14/6/2021 15:36

That's right - feel free to invent words as you think fit. Let's all do it and try to communicate with each other. For example, what do you think this means in your world of spelling and grammar "You are the biggest doring, goul-jouthed fwat on this board"?